Hub and spokes architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hub and spokes architecture (Data warehousing)[edit]

A hub and spokes architecture is an information architecture that follows principles from the spoke-hub distribution paradigm. In particular, it has evolved as a best practice standardization method for data warehouses. Data is collected, cleansed and versioned from several data sources into a central hub - the data warehouse - from which business application specific data marts can be derived.[1]

Hub and Spokes architecture (the San Francisco System) (International relations)[edit]

The "Hub and Spokes" architecture (or the San Francisco System) is a network of bilateral alliance (bilateralism) pursued by the United States in East Asia, after the end of the World War II. Hub and spokes system allowed the United States to develop exclusive postwar relationships with the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Republic of China (ROC or Taiwan), and Japan. Since the system emerged under the U.S powerplay rationale, it is the most dominant security architecture in East Asia up to now.[2]

Victor Cha defines powerplay as 'the construction of an asymmetric alliance designed to exert maximum control over the smaller allies in the region that might engage in aggressive behavior against adversaries that could entrap the United States into an unwanted war.' In other words, the hub and spokes system allowed the United States to have exclusive power over the East Asia and control of the rogue allies (rogue state) - anticommunist dictators who might start wars for reasons for domestic legitimacy (political) of their own regime.[3]

Hub and spokes system is highly asymmetric alliance in nature. The system can best be explained through the lens of security-autonomy tradeoff model. The model accounts for asymmetrical alliance ties involving states of different power status than for symmetric alliance bonds. Asymmetric alliance is a contract which a major power takes on the responsibility for minor country's security by pleading to support it in the contingency of military conflict. In return, major power gains autonomy or influence over the minor power's foreign policy decision-making process.[4]

Minor powers may seek alliances in order to increase security from military aggression. While major powers may be interested in alliances with minor powers, not for defense of own territory, but to extend their sphere of military and foreign influence.[5]

Hub-and-spokes system, with the United States as the "hub" and no apparent connections between the "spokes" allowed the U.S to exercise effective control over the smaller allies of the East Asia. The legacy of the system is continuing until today, represented by the absence of the multilateral security architecture(multilateralism) in the region.[6]

References[edit]

  1. ^ ?.
  2. ^ Kent E.Calder, "U.S Foreign Policy in Northeast Asia," in Samuel Kim, ed. The International Relations in East Asia (Lawman & Littlefield, 2004). Key traits of the San Francisco System.
  3. ^ Victor Cha, "Powerplay: The Origins of the U.S Alliance System in East Asia," International Security 34(3) (2001/10). Powerplay.
  4. ^ Volker Krause, J. David Singer, Minor Powers, Alliances, And Armed Conflict: Some Preliminary Patterns [1].
  5. ^ Bennett, D. Scott. 1997. “Testing Alternative Models of Alliance Duration, 1816-1984.” American Journal of Political Science 41:846-878. Asymmetric alliance.
  6. ^ Victor Cha, "Powerplay: The Origins of the U.S Alliance System in East Asia," International Security 34(3) (2001/10). Powerplay.